Civil Procedure
Fall 2006
I. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Historical Tenants and Modern Constitutional formulations
1. Original Framework –Pennoyer v. Neff
· Where the object of an action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the parties, service by publication against a nonresident is ineffective to confer jurisdiction upon the court
· Ps are not free to bring suit wherever they choose
· DPC puts appropriate limits on the places where a D can be required to defend a lawsuit.
2. Minimum Contacts & Due Process
· International Shoe v. Washington
○ For a state to subject a nonresident D to PJ, DPC requires that he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit doesn’t offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
○ A corporation that chooses to conduct activities within a state implicitly accepts a reciprocal duty to answer for its in-state activities in the local courts
○ Holding: Found that Int’l Shoe’s contacts with WA were continuous and systematic, a large volume, and the company received the benefits and protections of the state.
○ Rationale: based on the premise that parties who conduct activities in a state accept the risk that those activities will give rise to suits and understand that they may have to return to the state where the activity was conducted to defend such suits
· Guidelines for applying minimum contacts
○ Test applies to individual as well as corporate Ds
○ D may have sufficient contacts with a state to support minimum contacts jurisdiction there even though she didn’t act within the state
Ø If D commits an act outside the state she knows will cause harmful effects within the state, she will be subject to PJ for claims arising out of that act
Ø Calder effect: defamatory article written in FL, circulated in CA, and P lived in CA = PJ for D
Ø Ex: NY lawyer advises MO client over the phone on regular basis and bills. He derives benefits from conducting activities in MO, even if he’s never been there
○ Even a single contact may suffice, but not contacts that are “casual” or “isolated”
○ Focuses on the time D acted, not when he filed lawsuit
○ Limitations: because PJ derives from D’s voluntary relation to the state, the power should be limited to cases arising out of that relation
· Purposeful Availment: Hanson v. Denckla
○ Facts: woman established trust in DE, moved to FL and died, where her will was admitted to probate.
○ Issue: are there sufficient contracts between the trust co. and the state of FL for FL to have specific jurisdiction?
○ Held: if there are only minimal contacts between a state and D, then the contacts must be closely related to the claim; no purposeful availment to FL
○ D must have purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the foru
unrelated to its in-state activities
· Apparently appropriate when D’s activities in the state are so substantial and continuous that she would expect to be subject to suit there on any claim and would suffer no inconvenience from defending there
· To satisfy general PJ, there must be:
○ Systematic/continuous—Coastal Video Communications Corp. v. The Staywell Corp.
Ø Facts: Coastal claims that VA has PJ over Krames, who sells and distributes products in VA, mails catalogs and sends mailings in VA, sells products to hospitals in VA (though not sure if the handbook in dispute was sold there).
Ø Rule: Court may have general jurisdiction if the requisite minimum contacts between D and state are fairly extensive.
Ø Holding: if there is enough sales volume in VA, then VA has jurisdiction (remanded so this can be investigated).
○ Domicile
○ Primary place of business
○ Burnham/tag jurisdiction—Burnham v. Superior Court
Ø Facts: Mrs. Burnham serves NJ husband with divorce papers in CA while he was there on business and to visit kids.
Rule: state courts have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the state
